Make the rail network safe and save lives

Page Tools

Removing rail crossings is in the interests of
travellers and motorists, writes Kenneth Davidson.

The deaths of two teenage girls in less than a year at railway
stations might not have happened if safety standards had been
maintained and the program of separating level crossings had not
been abandoned in the 1970s to create "savings" to help finance
freeways.

Forget about whether 14-year-old Sarah Stringer was responsible
for her own death after failing to scramble on to Geelong's North
Shore platform to avoid the Melbourne express this week. The public
space and the rail space should be separated in a way that makes
this type of accident impossible.

Since the quarter-arsed Kennett government break-up of the
public transport system in 1999 into four "competing" rail and tram
franchises fell over in 2002 and was converted into a half-arsed
rail and tram duopoly by the Bracks Government - at huge cost to
the taxpayer and the network's integrity - the franchisees have
been tearing down fences to save maintenance costs, signalling and
safety procedures have been allowed to atrophy and station staff
who previously prevented the public using the tracks as playgrounds
and short-cuts have been sacked.

In a civilised, First-World city, the rail tracks should be
fenced off from the public, and crossings - whether for pedestrians
or motorists - should be grade separated so the road and footpaths
cross the track above or below the railway.

It is scandalous that there are 177 level crossings in greater
Melbourne. Why, you may ask, when there are none in greater
Sydney?

The answer is that when the battle over building the Eastern
Freeway was decided in favour of the road lobby in the 1970s, the
remaining question for VicRoads (which runs transport policy in
Victoria) was how to finance it. It decided that some of the
savings could be generated by abandoning the long-term program of
grade separation.

And consider this: grade separation is a boon to motorists in
two ways: it allows more frequent rail services while removing a
bottleneck that interrupts the flow of cars and trucks.

It is a win-win situation for motorists because the more they
can be persuaded by better and more reliable public transport
frequencies to leave their cars at home, the more space is
available on the roads for those motorists who would still prefer
to drive to work.

The abandonment of the grade separation program accelerated road
congestion and provided a simple-minded argument for more roads
that the politicians could understand and from which the financial
interests behind road contractors and now the private tollways
could profit.

Pedestrian deaths around level crossings/stations are an
all-too-regular occurrence.

David Bramwells - whose daughter Alana Nobbs last November
became the third person killed in a level crossing accident at
Bentleigh Station on the Frankston line since the late '80s - has
succeeded in getting an inquiry into this crossing. It has produced
the usual flannel.

It recommended improved safety signs and warning devices, and
pedestrian safety gates. But crucially, the report dismissed grade
separation on the grounds that an engineering consultant's report
showed it would "cost in the order of $80 million excluding train
operating costs". Really?

The Bracks Government used the excuse to abandon its promise to
extend the Broadmeadows line into Melbourne airport (which would
have undermined the monopoly profits of Transurban's CityLink) on
the grounds that the express rail link would have required grade
separations through Pascoe Vale, which would have cost around $20
million to $30 million for each separation.

Because of the proximity of the Bentleigh shops and the heavy
traffic on Centre Road, the cost of grade separation at Bentleigh
might be closer to $50 million than $20 million, but this
congestion simply underlines the economic (as well as the safety)
benefits of undertaking the separation.

A long-term program of grade separation could be financed out of
better allocation of the $2 billion-plus a year the Government now
spends on both urban roads and public transport. Less money on
roads can mean more mobility and real choice for motorists and
greater urban amenity as well as better and safer public
transport.

If the purpose of the transport budget is to promote urban
mobility and liveability at least cost instead of pandering to the
self-defeating preferences of the road lobby, the money should be
put into grade separations. The savings in one year could fully
finance separations at Bentleigh and the corner of Nunawading
Station and Springvale Road, which is the main alternative to
EastLink.

This proposal, financed in part by the sale of commercial space
above the station and the development of a bus interchange to
create a major activity centre along the lines of Box Hill, was one
of the more innovative promises Robert Doyle took to the last
election.

Given the rising cost of petrol and the increasing demand for
public transport from a growing number of outer suburban commuters
who can no longer afford to drive to the city, it is an even better
idea now and, explained properly, should be more popular as it
would create a toll-free "rat-run" to avoid the EastLink
tollway.